arm debate raises issues of race, class
In the now-closed Austin dialogue
about whether slaughterhouses should be allowed to operate in
single-family neighborhoods, there was a rush to find refuge in
euphemisms.
That particular conversation closed
with a common-sense City Council vote to ban slaughtering in
single-family neighborhoods — among other restrictions. The tenor and
tone of the discussion did not comport well with the city’s carefully
cultivated and cherished image of itself as one that fiercely protects
its neighborhoods and embraces tolerance.
There was an unmistakable
undercurrent of race and class issues that the city has trouble
confronting directly; thus the search for semantic refuge.
Saying that animals are “processed”
sounds a lot better than saying the city would allow animals to be
slaughtered commercially in a residential neighborhood. Growing
“sustainable food” sounds downright noble — much better than saying
urban farmers engage in commerce. They grow products in order to sell
them. Commerce is the lifeblood of any community, but restrictions on
where that commerce is conducted usually apply.
It should not be lost on anyone that
the urban farms seeking city approval to expand their activities were
all located east of the interstate and in
low-income neighborhoods. An
ordinance passed in 2000 allows urban farms. And an interpretation of
the ordinance by the city staff technically allowed slaughterhouses in
any city neighborhood.
Only a fool would believe that
residents in Tarrytown, Bouldin Creek or Allandale would allow a
commercial slaughterhouse operation and the composting of animal remains
anywhere in their neighborhoods.
It was a point opponents raised, but
advocates countered that the soil was better — and thus more conducive
to home-scale agribusiness — to the east. It was a counterpoint that
conveniently used geography to tiptoe around demographic reality. People
in poorer neighborhoods don’t have the economic and political resources
enjoyed by those who reside in more affluent areas.
So, watching this debate unfold was
Austin political theater at its best. Much sound and fury, righteous
indignation and only an occasional concession to the struggle to
determine which of two competing factions has the political muscle to
influence a council outcome.
Had the urban farm interests not
tried to push their envelope so aggressively in seeking to operate
slaughtering and composting, the peaceful co-existence with their
neighbors might have continued. We noted
in previous editorials that we get
the desire for locally produced fresh food. However, we shared the
neighborhood’s objection to allowing commercial slaughterhouse
operations in neighborhoods zoned for single-family residences.
The council’s vote last week was a
vote to protect not only those low-income neighborhoods east of the
interstate but a reaffirmation of its stated commitment to protect
neighborhood integrity.
The process that led to the proposed
ordinance recommended by the city’s planning commission was flawed and,
despite protestations to the contrary, not inclusive.
Frankly, the council’s concurrence
with the neighborhoods was something of a surprise. The city offered
mediation to the two sides, and they agreed but failed to reach a
compromise, raising the stakes for the Thursday vote.
The urban farm interests rallied an
impressive show of support at the council meeting on Thursday, but in
the end the council sided with the neighborhoods.
The vote ended this chapter, but
there will be other disputes as demands for property for housing and
businesses continues to turn east, where the land is not only tillable
but cheap. Gentrification disputes have been an ongoing source of
friction for longtime residents of Hispanic and African-American
neighborhoods for the past 20 years. That tension raises the price of
growth.
The city is growing, and we should
all hope it matures as it grows. Growing up means confronting issues
associated with growth squarely and talking about them directly.
Next time maybe we will, but don’t put a big bet on it. Austin has found a comfortable refuge in its euphemisms.
the statement of evidence is explain
No comments:
Post a Comment